This study explores the theoretical and practical foundations for the implementation of ethnomediation centers within the interaction system of government bodies, public organizations, and mahalla institutions in Uzbekistan. The research emphasizes the importance of culturally sensitive conflict resolution mechanisms in a multiethnic society, highlighting ethnomediation as an effective tool for strengthening social cohesion and preventing interethnic tensions. Using qualitative methods, including comparative, systemic, and document analysis, the study examines best practices from CIS countries and evaluates their applicability to the Uzbek context. Particular attention is given to the institutional potential of the mahalla system as a foundation for ethnomediation. The findings suggest that integrating ethnomediation centers into existing governance structures can enhance dialogue, improve trust among communities, and contribute to sustainable social development. Practical recommendations are proposed for legal regulation, capacity building, and intersectoral cooperation.

ethnomediation, mahalla system, conflict resolution, interethnic relations, social cohesion, public administration, Uzbekistan, CIS countries

Akhmedova, G. K. (2021). Development of mediation practices in the Republic of Kazakhstan: Legal and social aspects. Journal of Law and State, 3(2), 45–53.

Abdullaev, R. A. (2020). The role of civil society institutions in conflict prevention in Uzbekistan. Uzbek Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 33–41.

Ivanova, T. S. (2020). Mediation as a tool for resolving social conflicts in the Russian Federation. Russian Law Journal, 8(3), 112–120.

Karimov, S. M. (2019). Mahalla as a unique institution of self-governance in Uzbekistan. Central Asian Journal of Public Administration, 4(1), 23–30.

Kurbanov, D. B. (2022). Interethnic relations and mechanisms of social stability in Central Asia. CIS Sociological Review, 6(1), 78–86.

Nazarov, U. U. (2021). Legal foundations of mediation in Uzbekistan: Problems and prospects. Review of Law Sciences, 5(4), 55–63.